Re: Integer overflow in timestamp_part()

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jim Nasby
Тема Re: Integer overflow in timestamp_part()
Дата
Msg-id 56B15921.8020005@BlueTreble.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Integer overflow in timestamp_part()  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2/2/16 6:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that a good solution would be to create an
> artificial restriction to not accept years beyond, say, 100000 AD.
> That would leave us with a lot of daylight to not have to worry
> about corner-case overflows in timestamp arithmetic.  I'm not sure
> though where we'd need to enforce such a restriction; certainly in
> timestamp[tz]_in, but where else?

Probably some of the casts (I'd think at least timestamp->timestamptz). 
Maybe timestamp[tz]_recv. Most of the time*pl* functions. :/
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Curtis Ruck
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL Auditing
Следующее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2